London, England 7-8 July 2011 International Congress on Professional and Occupational Regulation Applying what evidence there is to a new continuing competence.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "London, England 7-8 July 2011 International Congress on Professional and Occupational Regulation Applying what evidence there is to a new continuing competence."— Presentation transcript:

1
London, England 7-8 July 2011 International Congress on Professional and Occupational Regulation Applying what evidence there is to a new continuing competence programme: An individually tailored, high-trust approach. Anne Goodhead and Steve Osborne, New Zealand Psychologists Board Promoting Regulatory Excellence

5
Rationale The HPCA Act requires that the Board be satisfied that a practitioner is competent before issuing a practising certificate. Complaints data suggest older and more experienced practitioners are more likely to attract complaints, consistent with research in other disciplines. Our aim is to lift the competence of all.

6
How can we lift performance? Best practice guidelines. Newsletters to raise awareness of pertinent issues. Well-established culture of supervision at all levels of practice. And most recently, mandatory CCP.

7
Development of the CCP Consultation - widespread support. Pilot study helped refine the model. Informed by literature on CPD. Newsletter updates on instructions, also conference and stakeholder group presentations. Audit has informed further refinement, as has our new learning outcomes survey.

8
CCP principles Lift competence standards overall. Individually tailored: Practitioners benchmark themselves against competence standards, then strive to improve on own areas of need. Assure the public of high standards. Flexible: To encompass the diversity of practice.

9
CCP principles Valid and relevant for practitioners. Support self-regulation, and the natural incentives for high quality practice. Increase self-efficacy.

10
Why try to lift overall standard? Need to counter the trend of knowledge and performance declining with years of experience. Choudhry 2005 review Traditional input models to CME and CE known to have only a small impact. Marinopoulos et al 2007, Mansouri and Lockyer 2007, Forsetlund et al (Cochrane review) 2009, Davis and Galbraith 2009 Research on output models of CPD “sparse” but seen as way forward. PARN 2008

13
And what of individual improvement? CCP requires a Self Reflective Review against prescribed Core Competencies. Eva and Regehr caution against self- evaluation. (2005, 2006) We require supervisor or colleague involvement - but is this enough? Face validity: Set goals, plans, and evaluate at end of the CCP year.

14
Learning outcomes, CCP vs. opportunistic

15
Does CCP assure safety of the public? Meeting legislative obligations. Consumer and policy “watchdogs” on public safety groups promote a similar approach to professional development. Citizens Advocacy Centre (2006), Institute of Medicine (2010) CCP includes the quality assurance step of evaluating outcomes and seeking feedback re impact on practice.

16
IS the CCP valid and relevant? Intention is that each psychologist shapes their programme to be meaningful, useful, relevant, and valid for them. Avoids tokenism. Does not block opportunistic professional development or that driven by unanticipated professional challenge.

17
Does the CCP facilitate self-regulation? Our pilot study suggests most psychologists do a considerable amount of PD without being directed to. The majority hold high ethical standards and strive for excellence. Natural incentives reward high standards. But, a US survey showed ~ 20% did little if not mandated. Neimeyer,2009,2010a,2010b

18
Does CCP support self-efficacy? Our pilot study indicated amount of PD was correlated with confidence in being up-to-date with psychology practice. Undertaking the SRR also appeared to be associated with more confidence and higher professional self esteem.

24
Audit participant feedback How burdensome or time consuming have you found the recording of your CCP? 1 = highly burdensome 10 = low burden

25
Audit participant feedback Has the CCP helped you focus your professional development activities? 1 = No 10 = Yes

26
Audit participant feedback Has CCP participation helped you to ensure that you are competent? 1 = No 10 = Yes

27
Audit participant feedback Have you found the CCP useful? 1 = not useful 10 = very useful

28
Where to from here? Continue to fine tune, have a framework we can tweak: Now offering more structured way of recording to reduce confusion and time (optional template). Clarifying role of supervisor, goal setting, and the end of year review. Attitudes remain mixed, ranging from enthusiastic to resentful.

29
Where to from here? Further research? We would be interested in any related research that you know of.

30
Thank you! And thanks to Dr Lois Surgenor for her assistance with the statistical analysis!

31
Research and development work by… Anne Goodhead Psychology Advisor New Zealand Psychologists Board PO Box Wellington 6143 New Zealand